The Leonard Peikoff Institute

[Robert Campbell]

In light of Leonard Peikoff's recent demand for allegiance, and Robert Tracinski's subsequent expulsion, I suggest a new name for a certain Southern Calfornia-based organization that Leonard Peikoff has no intention of relinquishing control over.

It should henceforward be known as the Leonard Peikoff Institute.

Whether she would have cared for Peikoff's recent pronouncements or not, Ayn Rand is no longer around to demand allegiance. Leonard Peikoff is. Truth in advertising should prompt Peikoff to rename the organization after himself.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Truth in advertising would call for that name change. Maybe we should call it that among ourselves.

[John Dailey]

~ Disagree.

~ Consider: 'ARI' has an ivory-towerish sound to it, practically ethereal when you think about it (if one pronounces it as a word rather than spelling it.) One can picture it as a near Mt. Olympus place amongst the high winds, with clouds blowing through its...'wide-open' windows and portals.

~ Whereas: 'LPI' (can't do a 'word' with that) has the sound of a back-street oriented Spanish private-investigator TV show. "El P.I."

~ No...I'll go with "Airee."

LLAP

J:D

Edited December 25, 2006 by John Dailey

[Jonathan]

"LPI" makes me think of "Liquid Propane Installation." I picture an old, rusty tank leaking gas into the air. Seems fitting.

J

[jenright]

It should henceforward be known as the Leonard Peikoff Institute.

L.P. doesn't seem very involved in the institute lately.

[studiodekadent]

I just refer to it as "Lenny's Cult."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

L.P. doesn't seem very involved in the institute lately.

John,

I like this kind of comment because it is precise and people should never lose sight of the facts. Technically, LP is not an active presence in ARI and that needs to be remembered.

However, there is another side. We also should not forget the new moral injunction and litmus test published on LP's site about voting Democrat. This has strongly impacted ARI and altered the public behavior of many of its members.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael and John,

In an organization like the Ayn Rand Institute that promotes ideological conformity, management and ideological control functions need not be vested in the same individuals.

While Yaron Brook is the top manager at ARI, I doubt that anyone inside or outside of that organization considers Dr. Brook to be either a major expert on the technical philosophy of Objectivism or a significant arbiter of ideological correctness.

Does Dr. Brook actually possess the authority to publicly criticize any of Leonard Peikoff's writings? If he were to do so, how long would he keep his position?

It is because Dr. Peikoff's writings are treated as sacrosanct at ARI, and there are serious repercussions for ARI affiliates who criticize even those pronouncements of his that fail to qualify as "official Objectivism" (such as the supposed consequences of the DIM hypothesis) that I think ARI should be known as the Leonard Peikoff Institute.

Robert

PS. In his final years, Deng Hsiao-ping progressively retired from his positions in the central government and the Communist Party; in the end he held no official post at all. Yet there was no doubt who actually ruled mainland China, virtually until the day he died.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I fully agree. I agree with John because what he states is a technicality or formal status that should be acknowledged. But I fully agree with your "de facto" analysis .

Michael

[jenright]

However, there is another side. We also should not forget the new moral injunction and litmus test published on LP's site about voting Democrat. This has strongly impacted ARI and altered the public behavior of many of its members.

I didn't mean to step on Robert C.'s jest, but I thought it might be interesting to talk about what the actual relationship is. I carry no brief for LP or ARI, but I don't think voting Republican is grounds for being disassociated from ARI yet. That day may come. Tracinski is being attacked for something a bit different - namely, criticizing a theory of the role of philosophy in social development that Peikoff has put forth, and that many see as an integral part of the Objectivist philosophy.

This is from the "about us" page of the ARI site: "Ayn Rand's philosophy—known as Objectivism—holds that historical trends are the inescapable product of philosophy."

Note that technically ARI itself has merely disassociated itself from him. But various ARI-loyal folks said more pointed things against him. A few ARI-loyal online folks are still sticking up for him, while conceding that he may be wandering from Objectivism.

As for LP and ARI, I wonder how much affection there is between them. Each provides value to the other. LP controls the books, including the ads he lets ARI run in the books. ARI provides him with a good marketplace and audience. The charter of ARI may give LP special control even though he's not on the board. Even at this point I can't imagine ARI getting in a philosophical dispute with LP. If LP were to say "Objectivism holds X," and his claim is at all plausible, ARI would have to proceed carefully before declining to agree with him.

I had an acquaintance with Tracinski many years ago, when he was an undergrad at the U. of Chicago. He was an intelligent guy who was working hard at understanding Rand's philosophy. He has developed into a writer of real power. I believe this split will prove to be beneficial for him, and that we will see a lot more of him in the public debate.

[Neil Parille]

I don't know much about the Trancinski situation, but if someone professes to be an Orthodox Objectivist but disagrees with Rand or Peikoff over a thing or two, it doesn't seem that there is much room for him in the Objectivist world.

[jenright]

It is because Dr. Peikoff's writings are treated as sacrosanct at ARI, and there are serious repercussions for ARI affiliates who criticize even those pronouncements of his that fail to qualify as "official Objectivism" (such as the supposed consequences of the DIM hypothesis) that I think ARI should be known as the Leonard Peikoff Institute.

Robert, sorry, we were posting at the same time, so I didn't see this reply yet when I last posted. In your latest post, my only question concerns whether repercussions are being visited yet for criticizing the DIM hypothesis. I don't think they've gotten there yet. I agree that Yaron B. is not a technical philosophy adept. I saw him dealing with U. of Chicago students in a debate, and they kept bringing versions of the Rawlsian veil of ignorance, and he didn't handle those arguments with anything like the detail that a philosopher would have done. On the current board, Binswanger is the only one who might be able to stand up to Peikoff in a disagreement, but the odds would be against Binswanger. So much energy has been invested in treating Peikoff as her "intellectual heir" that it's very hard for anyone at ARI to disagree with him on questions of what Objectivism is or directly implies. I do think you have a case for the re-naming, and I don't think they will defy LP, but if he's out of the daily loop then many of their activities can proceed without his scrutiny. John

[Robert Campbell]

I recently got an Ayn Rand Bookstore catalog in the mail (I presume it's because I bought Jim Valliant's book from them).

After seeing the ARI book exhibit in Washington (where they were not selling their display copies) I looked up Harry Binswanger's book on teleological concepts.

Binswanger's book is in the catalog, and I eventually found it--buried among his lecture recordings and journal article offprints on p. 24.

Leonard Peikoff gets the front section (pp. 4-12).

Ayn Rand's section (pp. 13-23, mildly padded with souvenirs, and with books about her) comes after Peikoff's in the catalog.

Harry Binswanger (pp. 24-25) rates a distant third place. Subsequent sections of the catalog are labeled by topic, not author.

The banners across the top of page 4 states "The inclusion of Leonard Peikoff's materials in this catalog does not imply that he agrees with the content of other items herein." No such disclaimer is afforded to Binswanger, or to any other ARI-affiliated author.

Sho' nuff, it's the Leonard Peikoff Institute.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Today, I received my OCON 2007 brochure from the ARI. Leonard Peikoff will be giving 6 lectures on the DIM hypothesis. Here is what the brochure says:

"Leonard Peikoff's appearance at this conference does not imply that he agrees with the ideas and formulations of any other speakers."

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Today, I received my OCON 2007 brochure from the ARI. Leonard Peikoff will be giving 6 lectures on the DIM hypothesis. Here is what the brochure says:

"Leonard Peikoff's appearance at this conference does not imply that he agrees with the ideas and formulations of any other speakers."

But the appearance of the others implies that they currently or soon will agree with LP :-).

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Today, I received my OCON 2007 brochure from the ARI. Leonard Peikoff will be giving 6 lectures on the DIM hypothesis. Here is what the brochure says:

"Leonard Peikoff's appearance at this conference does not imply that he agrees with the ideas and formulations of any other speakers."

But the appearance of the others implies that they currently or soon will agree with LP :-).

Jim

LOLOLOLOL...

This is the damnedest manner to promote a closed system I have ever seen. Weird. One thing you can say about it. It is completely sui generis.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

So the DIM hypothesis is part of Objectivism? Objectivism is not a closed system?

[Bidinotto]

Chris, you NAILED it. Hahahahahaha.

[Brant Gaede]

So the DIM hypothesis is part of Objectivism? Objectivism is not a closed system?

It's just a bigger nutshell: "I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space." Hamlet

--Brant

[Charles R. Anderson]

The DIM hypothesis? Uhh.....This is still an hypothesis and not yet a theory? So, it is an idea being prepared for experimental testing and is not yet proven? ARI is to offer 6 lectures on this? Maybe the experiment should be done first?

Oh, yeah, I am catching on now. Experiments only need to be performed if reality is primary. When theoretical analysis is primary, then experiment is not needed.

But, then what meaning would hypothesis have? Wouldn't that just be this: I would call it the DIM theory if I had confidence in it, but since I do not, I call it the DIM hypothesis.

There is something dim-witted going on here!